Ōsode (大袖) of the Late Heian and Late Kamakura period
Ōsode (大袖) of the Late Heian and Late Kamakura period
An example of a pair of ōsode from the Edo period. Despite their age they are made pretty much as the early models used centuries before.
In this article I will cover one of the most (if not the most) iconic piece of Japanese armor usually associated with Samurai, the ōsode (大袖).
As I did previously for my article on Japanese kote, the period of reference for this article is from the late Heian period to the late Kamakura, so from the 10th century to the early 14th one, although some of the features of this type of sode will eventually translate into other period as well, especially the Edo period.
This choice is made to give some type of uniform classification when talking about armor but also due to the fact that around this long time frame, the Samurai who worn this type of armor piece were predominantly mounted archers and most of the armor and equipment
of the period reflected this fact.
An illustration showing part of the equipments of a Samurai of this period; on the left we can see a Sode both on the exterior and interior side.
The development of ōsode is quite interesting and nonetheless a very puzzling one. Due to a severe lack of any type of evidences from the armor of the 700s and the 800s, it's hard to reconstruct the steps that shoulder armor took before becoming this very unique and typical Japanese shape.
What do we know is that from a type of lamellar pauldron known as kata yoroi (肩鎧), very similar to the one used in contemporary Chinese and Korean armor or even in early modern era Tibetan armor, we get to a squared, quite broad lamellar shield that is placed on the shoulder.
In order to understand this change, which might look like a downgraded step in terms of armor design, it is important to learn how this piece of armor worked in conjuction with armor for the arms and mounted archery.
A good example on what kata yoroi were. Early models were made of lames, later ones with lamellar boards.
In fact, when the figure of the Samurai emerged in Japan, up until the 14th century these mounted troops dominated the battlefield and armies of mounted archers were the striking forces of the government to quell revolts and later one, to establish a new form of government.
In this context, the Japanese bow and the horse were the two main weapons, used in conjuction, of the early Bushi.
When looking at the classic shape of the Japanese bow, the yumi or more correctly the wakyū it is impossible to not notice the huge size of this weapon.
Having to control the horse while holding such big bow made carrying a shield very uncomfortable and not practical at all.
In order to still have the protection required to face the arrows of the other archers, shields were placed on the shoulders, attached to the armor, in the form of ōsode.
I covered this topic as well in my article about shield, and I have noticed that this information of how the Samurai relied on armor rather than on hand held shield is nowadays a well known and established fact, but it might be hard to interpret if it's not shown how these ōsode were supposed to work as shields.
As I did previously for my article on Japanese kote, the period of reference for this article is from the late Heian period to the late Kamakura, so from the 10th century to the early 14th one, although some of the features of this type of sode will eventually translate into other period as well, especially the Edo period.
This choice is made to give some type of uniform classification when talking about armor but also due to the fact that around this long time frame, the Samurai who worn this type of armor piece were predominantly mounted archers and most of the armor and equipment
of the period reflected this fact.
An illustration showing part of the equipments of a Samurai of this period; on the left we can see a Sode both on the exterior and interior side.
The development of ōsode is quite interesting and nonetheless a very puzzling one. Due to a severe lack of any type of evidences from the armor of the 700s and the 800s, it's hard to reconstruct the steps that shoulder armor took before becoming this very unique and typical Japanese shape.
What do we know is that from a type of lamellar pauldron known as kata yoroi (肩鎧), very similar to the one used in contemporary Chinese and Korean armor or even in early modern era Tibetan armor, we get to a squared, quite broad lamellar shield that is placed on the shoulder.
In order to understand this change, which might look like a downgraded step in terms of armor design, it is important to learn how this piece of armor worked in conjuction with armor for the arms and mounted archery.
A good example on what kata yoroi were. Early models were made of lames, later ones with lamellar boards.
In fact, when the figure of the Samurai emerged in Japan, up until the 14th century these mounted troops dominated the battlefield and armies of mounted archers were the striking forces of the government to quell revolts and later one, to establish a new form of government.
In this context, the Japanese bow and the horse were the two main weapons, used in conjuction, of the early Bushi.
When looking at the classic shape of the Japanese bow, the yumi or more correctly the wakyū it is impossible to not notice the huge size of this weapon.
Having to control the horse while holding such big bow made carrying a shield very uncomfortable and not practical at all.
In order to still have the protection required to face the arrows of the other archers, shields were placed on the shoulders, attached to the armor, in the form of ōsode.
I covered this topic as well in my article about shield, and I have noticed that this information of how the Samurai relied on armor rather than on hand held shield is nowadays a well known and established fact, but it might be hard to interpret if it's not shown how these ōsode were supposed to work as shields.
This frame of a scroll of the 14th century shows how ōsode can be moved forward, covering most of the upper body and face while the warrior is still able to control his horse.
By moving the shoulder forward, the sode will shift position and it will stand on the front, covering most of the body. This rather simple yet smart solution allow the Samurai to control his horse and still hold a bow, while ensuring that there would still be a shield in between enemy arrows and his armor.
When not needed, the sode could be displaced by moving the shoulder in the opposite direction, and both shields will stand on the back, so that the arms will have complete range of motion.
In this case, the protection of the arm will be assigned to the kote, and the Samurai will have a higher degree of fredom to operate his bow or sword.
This idea of using the sode as shield work on foot as well, by adopting particular stances, although it is fair to highlight that is not as efficient as it is on horseback while using a bow.
Not surprisingly, when foot combat became more frequent, ōsode were dropped in favor of other styles of sode which are more akin to pauldrons, but this is a topic for another article.
A detailed nomenclature on the various part of a sode. Taken from Y. Sasama.
Sode of this period were made just like the O'yoroi, so with very sturdy, hardened and rigid lamellar boards laced together with kebiki odoshi.
The upper row of lamellae is covered with a metal plate, called kanmuri no ita (冠板).
Some also show a keshō no ita (化粧板) to hide the top row of lacing. Another often seen feature are decorative hassō-kanamono (八双金物) and most common for sode were six or seven rows.
In early times (Heian period), the uppermost row was directly laced to the lower edge of the kanmuri no ita and additionally held in place by hassō-byō.
The piece of armor was held in place by a central, a left and a right hassō-byō whose pins were visible on the back side of the sode.
In addition, the back side was equipped with three rings to which the various cords were tied. These cords in turn were tied to the watagami and the agemaki on the back of the dō. Another ring, the mizunomi no kan (水呑の鐶), is installed at one of the rows. The cord attached to this ring was also tied to the agemaki and it was used to adjust the position of the sode.
How the Sode is tied to the armor; sketch taken from Y.Sasama.
This rather complex system of cords allow the sode to shift position according to shoulder's movement.
The upper row plate was either straight, slightly curved or in yamagata or kata-yamagata styles (half mountain shaped) for the early Heian period.
Sode of this period were usually quite big, in between 45 and 51 cm of height and around 36 cm wide, made with of sixrows of lamellar in the Heiean period which were usually made by combining iron and rawhide lamellae, most of the time in Kane maze (金混ぜ), with the iron lamellae concentrated on the section that covered the arm and the rest made of rawhide. This was done in order to reduce the weight, which is usually in between 1,5 and 2,5 kg each. Nevertheless, sane-ita combined by alternating one iron and one rawhide lamellae existed as well, and this were usually the heaviest ones.
In the Kamakura period the rows of lamellae increased by one, and most of the time each lamellar board was made by around 46 individual kozane.
On the back of the armor, the side facing the arm, a leather cover in the form of a long and thin strip was applied; it is called yazurigawa (矢摺革) and was probably implemented around the late Heian period.
It was for protecting the arrows sticking out of the quiver from getting caught in or rubbing against the lamellae rows of the sode. In the 14th century the long and thin strip it was replaced by a leather patch applied centrally to the inside of the sode.In later times, these patches were more meant to protect the lacing of the lamellae and so the name changed to chikaragawa (力革).
Various types of ōsode; the top row is made by the oldest surviving examples, while the bottom row is made from examples of the later periods, the last one is an example of a Edo period "plate" ōsode. Sketch taken from Y. Sasama.
In the 14th century ōsode were still used especially as a symbol of high rank, but were soon replaced during the violent wars of the Nanbokucho period by other styles of pauldrons that emphasize fighting on foot.It is in fact rather erroneous to think that this style of equipment was used for everything but status symbol: ōsode were still made well within the 16th century, but ever since the 14th century had lost any real practical value on the battlefield.
During the Edo period there was also a revival of this style of armor with different new decorative implentations, like ōsode entirely made of steel plates, which higlight the rather unpractical but heavily decorative focus of the armors of this age.
Nevertheless, during their prime age this piece of armor was highly functional and could be as heavily decorated as the other parts of the armor, so they often had regalia and small banners attached to them, as well as particular lacing patterns and clan mon lacquered on the kanmuri no ita.
Thank you for your time, I hope that this article was able to shed some light on this very iconic yet misunderstood piece of armor!
Feel free to share it and for any question don't hesitate to leave a question.
When not needed, the sode could be displaced by moving the shoulder in the opposite direction, and both shields will stand on the back, so that the arms will have complete range of motion.
In this case, the protection of the arm will be assigned to the kote, and the Samurai will have a higher degree of fredom to operate his bow or sword.
This idea of using the sode as shield work on foot as well, by adopting particular stances, although it is fair to highlight that is not as efficient as it is on horseback while using a bow.
Not surprisingly, when foot combat became more frequent, ōsode were dropped in favor of other styles of sode which are more akin to pauldrons, but this is a topic for another article.
A detailed nomenclature on the various part of a sode. Taken from Y. Sasama.
Sode of this period were made just like the O'yoroi, so with very sturdy, hardened and rigid lamellar boards laced together with kebiki odoshi.
The upper row of lamellae is covered with a metal plate, called kanmuri no ita (冠板).
Some also show a keshō no ita (化粧板) to hide the top row of lacing. Another often seen feature are decorative hassō-kanamono (八双金物) and most common for sode were six or seven rows.
In early times (Heian period), the uppermost row was directly laced to the lower edge of the kanmuri no ita and additionally held in place by hassō-byō.
The piece of armor was held in place by a central, a left and a right hassō-byō whose pins were visible on the back side of the sode.
In addition, the back side was equipped with three rings to which the various cords were tied. These cords in turn were tied to the watagami and the agemaki on the back of the dō. Another ring, the mizunomi no kan (水呑の鐶), is installed at one of the rows. The cord attached to this ring was also tied to the agemaki and it was used to adjust the position of the sode.
How the Sode is tied to the armor; sketch taken from Y.Sasama.
This rather complex system of cords allow the sode to shift position according to shoulder's movement.
The upper row plate was either straight, slightly curved or in yamagata or kata-yamagata styles (half mountain shaped) for the early Heian period.
Sode of this period were usually quite big, in between 45 and 51 cm of height and around 36 cm wide, made with of sixrows of lamellar in the Heiean period which were usually made by combining iron and rawhide lamellae, most of the time in Kane maze (金混ぜ), with the iron lamellae concentrated on the section that covered the arm and the rest made of rawhide. This was done in order to reduce the weight, which is usually in between 1,5 and 2,5 kg each. Nevertheless, sane-ita combined by alternating one iron and one rawhide lamellae existed as well, and this were usually the heaviest ones.
In the Kamakura period the rows of lamellae increased by one, and most of the time each lamellar board was made by around 46 individual kozane.
On the back of the armor, the side facing the arm, a leather cover in the form of a long and thin strip was applied; it is called yazurigawa (矢摺革) and was probably implemented around the late Heian period.
It was for protecting the arrows sticking out of the quiver from getting caught in or rubbing against the lamellae rows of the sode. In the 14th century the long and thin strip it was replaced by a leather patch applied centrally to the inside of the sode.In later times, these patches were more meant to protect the lacing of the lamellae and so the name changed to chikaragawa (力革).
Various types of ōsode; the top row is made by the oldest surviving examples, while the bottom row is made from examples of the later periods, the last one is an example of a Edo period "plate" ōsode. Sketch taken from Y. Sasama.
In the 14th century ōsode were still used especially as a symbol of high rank, but were soon replaced during the violent wars of the Nanbokucho period by other styles of pauldrons that emphasize fighting on foot.It is in fact rather erroneous to think that this style of equipment was used for everything but status symbol: ōsode were still made well within the 16th century, but ever since the 14th century had lost any real practical value on the battlefield.
During the Edo period there was also a revival of this style of armor with different new decorative implentations, like ōsode entirely made of steel plates, which higlight the rather unpractical but heavily decorative focus of the armors of this age.
Nevertheless, during their prime age this piece of armor was highly functional and could be as heavily decorated as the other parts of the armor, so they often had regalia and small banners attached to them, as well as particular lacing patterns and clan mon lacquered on the kanmuri no ita.
Thank you for your time, I hope that this article was able to shed some light on this very iconic yet misunderstood piece of armor!
Feel free to share it and for any question don't hesitate to leave a question.
Gunbai
This was really interesting! I'm hopping that you will make a post about the sode of the sengoku period.
ReplyDeleteOh and, can you send me images of Edo period armors with O-Sode, please?
Thanks! I will indeed; I don't know if the pattern is already visible but I'm trying to be prepared with all the arms and armor of the 11th-13th century so that when the Ghost of Tsushima game will be out (if I manage to make it in time!) I will finally cover the Mongol invasion of Japan ;)
DeleteAlso here a picture of a typicial Edo period armor with Osode:
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/18307/lot/6123/?category=list&length=12&page=11
I noticed that the Sode when used with the shoulder forward had the same coverage as early 15th century shield attached to the upper arm.
ReplyDeletehttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Anonim-StJordi-Generalitat-2568.jpg
How useful is the O-Sode for melee fighting?
By the way, is this picture you use for showing the O-Sode truly from the 13th century?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/82/dd/fb/82ddfbdc084c7a52ed767cbdbeffb12a.jpg
I see the Samurai having knee and feet armor which I believe start to be worn from the 14th century onward.
I found something that might be a precedent for the Sendan-no-Ita and Kyubi-no-Ita.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/82/dd/fb/82ddfbdc084c7a52ed767cbdbeffb12a.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e5/ba/7a/e5ba7a554e948ec766b077ea96a1c0db--gunma-the-soldier.jpg
If you look at the pauldron, it seems the pauldron had another lamellar piece with separate direction downward instead of along the upper arm.
Also quite interesting was that some Haniwa had lamellar armor which was fastened probably at the sides, different than the usual portrayal of Keiko armor.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/FunazukaKofunHaniwaSoldier2.jpg
https://cdn.kastatic.org/ka-perseus-images/d957bb042936dcc9e1f54c03313695bde84b982a.jpg
That is probably why Heian and Kamakura Period armor were not fastened at the front side.
About my earlier comment about bows, I would say that the archery feats of the Native American seems consistent because different European accounts say about the same thing even when they were separated by time and area.
I actually start to believe that mail alone was unable to prevent penetration by arrow. It had its best feat of resisting arrows and lances when they were worn with gambeson beneath.
The gambeson is harder to penetrate with bodkin points than with broadhead because the bodkin lack cutting points and it get wrapped by the gambeson.
Mail alone could resist cutting attack like with broadhead arrow, but it may not be able to resist a bodkin without gambeson.
Worn together the mail + gambeson resist both light thrusting attack and cuts, it still cannot resist blunt trauma or strong thrusting attack that penetrate the mail and then the gambeson.
In a test, putting gambeson over mail gave better result than when the gambeson was worn beneath mail.
However, I would say mail was worn alone where archery was lacking, too few in number or too light to damage it. Lack of polearms probably account for it too.
For example, as far as I know, there was no consistent use of longbow in most of Europe and Middle East, while in East Asia, we had murals of Han Dynasty with bows as tall as man. We know from the 4th century model that the Kofun Period Japanese had bows as tall as a man as well.
Yes I think that the overall idea it's like this:
Deletehttps://www.julienzannoni.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/JGZ8654.jpg
But with a more flexible shield.
How useful it is in a melee? Hard to tell actually. The thing is that in that scenario it might be prefarable to have the sode on your shoulder in order to not restrict arm movement but I haven't seen much fighting with this style of armor. It might be worth it to see if someone has done some form of experiment with it, but it's definitely more useful to use it when somebody is shooting arrow at you.
You might be right on the dating of the scroll, nice spot! I will change that ;)
Those Haniwa are very interesting, especially the one with overextended pauldrons. I don't know if there are actually archaeological findings to see what shape had the real life equivalent of that depiction.
About the native bows; you are right, if there was just a mail shirt with no padded armor underneath that's sounds more reasonable. You can definitely bypass mail with more ease in that case but the thing is that it really depends on the shape of the arrowhead and the material as well. Bone might be hard enough but you really need to give it a very fine taper which might be hard to do given the material.
Still, with a proper arrowhead, it is very reasonable to do such things
When the Kofun warrior used shield or Samurai used Sode, it leave only a small space between the helmet brim and top of the shield/Sode. That is probably why armor face like Menpo only start appearing after the Sode became smaller or discarded.
DeleteI found 2 more photos of Samurai using Sode as shield.
https://otona123.cocolog-nifty.com/photos/uncategorized/2016/03/22/dscf3318.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9e/ac/43/9eac433f7d2ecdebd97c83fb37398216.jpg
Why did some 16th century Japanese armor didn't had Sode?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/08/aa/e5/08aae507f6eeab1015b99f7318547de9.jpg
About the Kofun pauldron, didn't one of the armor in the O-yoroi progression chart by Y. Sasama show something like that?
The account of primitive arrows penetrating mail and other armor remind me of the Roman account that the Hun used bone tipped arrow. The Mongol was also said by Thomas of Split to use steel and bone tip, their arrows was said to penetrate all armor worn by the European.
I had a guess about organic tipped arrow like hardened wood tip, bone tip or cane tip would actually trim themselves when they hit the hole in the mail. Their softness make them able to deform into a narrower form.
Also the account of Crusader knights having arrows sticking out from them seems to suggest that the arrows penetrate the mail, but not the gambeson.
About the mobility in melee with the O-Sode, I think Metatron made some movement tests and actual sparring with his (not)"14th" century armor. What I remember is that the size wasn't a problem because isnt't locked in your arm as a normal pauldron.
Delete@Joshua
DeleteRegarding archery in Europe, I'd say Vikings (i.e. Great Heathen Army) made pretty heavy use of longbow as well, were there not?
@Francisco Souza Aguirre
For close combat purpose, isn't it better to have a (shaped rather than flat) pauldron locked to your upper arm?
@春秋戰國
DeleteHow much archer do they have?
I know about the use of longbows in Europe before the English longbowmen, but I never read anything showing them as remarkable as later English longbowmen.
My guess was that the archers were just for complementary purpose and not a decisive units by themselves. European armies, in my opinion, were certainly not as missile heavy as Middle Eastern or East Asian ones until the gunpowder era.
@Joshua I do believe that additional armor pieces developed when close quarter fighting became more common compared to horseback fighting and so Osode were less useful.
DeleteOn that armor, which Iirc is one of Ieyasu's armor, I would say that it simply lack sode but it was inteded to have them: usually you don't have sode in the armor when you have bishamon kote + kobire, in that configuration with mail armor it simply look as if they are missing which is a very common feature for original armor.
Also you are right, there are some sketches of Y. Sasama on the topic but they didn't look as over extended as that of the haniwa in my opinion.
On organic arrow head I would be very interested to see if there are any test, that would be very cool to investigate!
@Francisco Mobility test with Osode should be taken with a pinch of salt because it's hard to correctly lace them with all the cords (especially on the back). The main advantage is that it would be like fighting with a strapped targe but that it could be placed on the back if needed fairly easy.
So they offer that kind of extensive protection on the upper body, but they limit your arm movement; on the other hand, if needed, they can be put aside by moving them on the back. When they are on the back they don't interfere with your arm movement.
And indeed @春秋戰國 is absolutely right, pauldron style of shoulder armor are much better to fight in that scenario, hence why they were developed in Japan as well.
On a final note about archery, I wouldn't say that it wasn't uncommon in Europe, especially when we consider crossbow usage as well, but it wasn't as common as in other part of the world like Asia, mainly due to the fact that bows and horsemanship were two features of the noble class in Asia while archery wasn't in the (western) European case.
@Gunsen
DeleteI found another Kofun statue with the extended pauldron. It looks similar, but different when you look at the sword on the waist.
https://image.tnm.jp/image/1024/C0010654.jpg
Do we know something about Kofun crossbow?
https://livedoor.blogimg.jp/all_nations/imgs/d/e/dec5f099.jpg
How realistic was armor that look like this in the Edo Period?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cf/23/19/cf2319a897aafa2432728e864cacafd0.jpg
https://artchive.ru/res/media/img/oy1800/work/a01/379718@2x.jpg
@Joshua @Gunsen
Deletehttps://www.judsonroberts.com/?page_id=1149
According to this article, Vikings made heavy use of archery, even Kings fought with bows and arrows. They were apparently pretty skilled in its use too.
@Joshua
DeleteAll the things we know about Japanese crossbow before the Edo period are very scarce, since we lack evidence.
Speaking of Kofun period crossbow, I don't think there are information at all because there was one excavated crossbow dated to the late Yayoi period and then the next information available is dated 9th century. It is fair to assume that they were used to some degree and that they were likely to be inspired by Chinese or Koreans models.
And on that two armors, I would say fairly realistic since for once, those illustrations are depicting armors worn in the same period ( which is quite rare indeed for Japanese artwork!). The only thing is that those squared plates might be smaller but they seems pretty accurate depiction!
@春秋戰國 very interesting reading, thanks!
I have to say that I'm not well versed at all when it comes to Viking period and northern European history so this is why I usually avoid comparisons. But that was indeed interesting!
@Gunsen
DeleteThe way the article describes Viking first rank "struck blows", second rank "thrust with spears" and 3rd rank "shot with spears and arrows" actually reminds me of Jurchen tactic, although AFAIK Jurchens seem to put spearmen in the front rank and glaivemen (not available to the Vikings) at second rank, or used a mixed spear-glaive front rank.
BTW, Glaivemen could also mean "swordsmen", due to the ambiguity of the term "大刀".
DeleteKoxinga also used a similar formation but replaced bows and arrows with arquebus.
Very interesting to see this tactics adopted worldwide!
DeleteIt might be that similar formations have been used in Japan, although I haven't read of them, but it sounds rather efficient to have a screen of polearm protecting archers.
@Gunsen
DeleteWhile arraying swordsmen/spearmen in front to protect archers may seem like a no-brainer, the way Viking formation is described make it seem like the archers stood directly behind the shield wall as one single unit (no gap between spearmen and archers), which is why I draw comparison to Jurchen tactic.
Japanese description of Jurchen tactic (Toi Invasion) appears to be quite similar. I wonder if it was a tactic commonly used by (sea) raiders.
About Viking archery, there could be expert archers in the Viking society, but it did not make them missile centric and even if the Viking and English was missile-centric didn't mean the the rest of Europe was missile-centric.
DeleteI remember an inscription by a Roman archer about him hitting an arrow that he had loosed before with another arrow to indicate his skill. The Romans also had Scorpios, auxiliary archer and slinger, but despite all of that, I still think the Romans is less missile-centric than the Mongol or Japanese.
For example, I could not see this happening with both the Vikings or Roman.
"The archbishop did not notice this when he was quite close to them and hastily entered it. Being weighed down by their armor, he and his men could neither cross nor return. But the Tatars turned around quickly, surrounded the marsh and killed them all with a shower of arrows."
by Rogerius of Apulia
Other European people were even less capable of ranged combat.
For example, this was a description of the Franks by Procopius:
"They had a small body of cavalry about their leader, and these were the only ones armed with spears, while all the rest were foot soldiers having neither bows nor spears, but each man carried a sword and shield and one axe."
Another description of the Franks by Agathias:
"At the hip they wear a sword and on the left side their shield is attached. They have neither bows nor slings, no missile weapons except the double edged axe and the angon which they use most often. The angons are spears which are neither very short nor very long they can be used, if necessary, for throwing like a javelin, and also in hand to hand combat."
The Greeks during the event of Xenophon's Anabasis did not had any ranged units, so they could not respond to Persian ranged attacks until they were joined by Creatn slingers.
About the Viking formation,
not to be dismissive, but isn't such formation an extremely logical one to make when you have melee and ranged fighters?
It had been depicted in Neo-Assyrian reliefs.
https://i1.wp.com/inews.gtimg.com/newsapp_match/0/3849070939/0
and the Achaemenid Persian had the same formation as that.
@Joshua
DeleteObviously the tactic was logical, otherwise they wouldn't be used in the first place.
My understanding of Neo-Assyrian and Archaemenid Persian tacticss are pretty limited, although I don't think Viking and Archaemenid formation are comparable. Achaemenid tactic, as I understand, was very archer-centred, with one Sparabara acting as some sort of Pavisier at the foremost rank, protecting up to nine archers behind him. Presumably the formation would be pretty static and good at pouring high volume of arrows (correct me if I am wrong).
OTOH, Viking formation as described in Heimskringla actually have them clash into an opposing shield wall. The described first, second and third rank attacking using different weapons all happened simultaneously at close combat range.
@春秋戰國
DeleteI mean if it is logical, is it a remarkable thing that both the Jurchen and Viking fought the same? Both are human beings, they would reach the same conclusion.
I could see the the effect of the combined melee and close range arrow shot, but I think any other army could do that as well.
https://scienceinfo.net/data-images/images/10-facts-that-few-people-know-about-the-ancient-army-of-the-persian-empire-picture-1-fCLi4ee2D.jpg
I think the difference with the Vikings was that because the Neo-Assyrian/Achaemenid did not have polearms, they only have a row of spearmen in front of the archers. The Neo-Assyrian relief shows scene where spearmen attack enemy archers while the Assyrian archers shot from behind the spearmen. Considering that the enemy that was attacked was archers, I assume that the spearmen charge the enemy and the archers follow from behind.
https://i1.wp.com/inews.gtimg.com/newsapp_match/0/3849070939/0
If the army had a lot more archers than melee fighters, then they would make a formation behind the spearmen. If the Vikings had more archer than melee infantry, I think the archers would pile behind the melee units as well just like the Achaemenid formation.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bkjno-5wgas/XBVQb1e8gPI/AAAAAAAADFA/pMCijn_oZIo5IhJpmFXd8xpT9bemVqsYgCKgBGAs/s1600/IMG_3163edited.jpg
I don't know about being static, but at least Neo-Assyrian archers and melee fighters were seems to be depicted as quite offensive in nature. Archers for example were depicted climbing ladder after spearmen.
@Gunsen
About crossbows, I think there were more accounts of the Oyumi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyumi
I remember an account of a late Heian Period Samurai surviving a hit from an Oyumi because of his armor, I forget if the Oyumi shot rocks or bolts against the Samurai.
I found that a Nara Period crossbow trigger was found in 1999 in the ruins of Iji Castle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iji_Castle
This is the trigger, the trigger had a different form compared to Chinese trigger, but the principle is the same.
https://www.fcp.or.jp/mahoron/nenpou/image1/nenpou2001/68p2_1.jpg
Modern reconstruction:
https://www.fcp.or.jp/mahoron/nenpou/image1/nenpou2001/68p1_1.jpg
This are the websites with the excavated trigger.
https://www.pref.miyagi.jp/site/maizou/09do.html
https://www.fcp.or.jp/mahoron/nenpou/nenpou2001_35.htm
I had also seen the report about the Yayoi Period crossbow. It had some kind of rope for pulling the string or something. I cannot post the link because it immediately download the file, but I get the report by typing crossbow (Shudo) Shimane prefecture in Japanese character in Google.
@Joshua
DeleteYes, I do find it remarkable - roles and tactics of archery are overlooked enough as is, and what we usually learn is that archers were usually employed in skirmisher role or more defensive & static mass shooting formation. Employing archers in a more offensive role in tandem with close combat troops certainly isn't something I'd call "common knowledge" for us modern people, and if the tactic was widespread, then more the reason to take a closer look at it.
That being said, the tactic certainly wasn't universally used even by the Vikings (according to that article, King Harald Hardrada used a more defensive spearmen-archers formation during Battle of Stanford Bridge, presumably due to the presense of English cavalry).
Comments on your previous quotes on other European cultures (that I somehow missed in my previous replies)
I won't consider Vikings "missile-centric" either, especially compared to more Eastern cultures, although your description of the Franks do make them seems downright exceptional in ranged weapons by the standard of their time, so I do see yours point about mail armour though.
Procopius's description of the Franks is very interesting. That was the Franks before Carolingian Empire time right?
@春秋戰國
DeleteYour opinion that the Viking shot arrows in melee combat is very interesting. I found out that the Archaic Period Greeks also shot arrows at very close range according to this paper.
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8QF912R
See page 98-100.
The archers snipe hoplites at close range, close enough that they could talk to each other.
Although I still couldn't see how this quote means that the Viking shot arrows another shield wall in close range. Maybe you read the rest of it from the Heimskringla, so I don't know the whole context.
“[T]hey who stood foremost struck blows, they who were next thrust with spears, and all who came up behind, shot with spears or arrows or cast stones or hand axes or javelins.”
"He arrayed his warriors in a shield wall that was “long and not thick,” and the King instructed that “they who stand foremost shall set their spear shafts in the earth and turn the points towards the riders’ breasts, in case they ride in upon us; and they who stand in the second rank shall set their spear points towards the horses’ breasts.” The bowmen in the army were arrayed behind, with the household warriors of the King and his ally, Tosti the Jarl, forming a mobile reserve. [5]"
This sound like Achaemenid tactic to me especially the "long and not thick" formation they use. Again, I don't know if the formation would then advance to clash with other similar formation, I assume it was static.
What is the reason for the more close quarter tactics of the Jurchen that seems to rely on close quarter shock effect like with the Iron Pagoda and later Manchu armored cavalry? Is it because of the forested terrain of their country and their sedentary nature?
About Procopius, yes, his description was about the 6th century Franks. The paper also mentioned that Charlemagne created a horse archer division after defeating the Avars.
I once read that Scandinavia had more archery because of the mountainous region which means that infantry was more useful than cavalry in Scandinavia.
@Joshua
DeleteAnother translation (taken from Wikisource) of Heimskringla is as follow:
"Then the bonde-army pushed on from all quarters. They who stood in front hewed down with their swords; they who stood next thrust with their spears; and they who stood hindmost shot arrows, cast spears, or threw stones, hand-axes, or sharp stakes. Soon there was a great fall of men in the battle."
Later in the battle, King Olaf and his retinues "came forth from behind the shield-bulwark and put himself at the head of the army", which suggest there was one single shield wall with swordsmen, spearmen and archers all fighting together. King Olaf and his men probably acting as some kind of reserve.
Harald Hardrada's shield wall was static. The shield wall eventually clashed in close combat, although it was the English army that charged him across the bridge.
I don't know the exact reason for Jurchen tactics of relying on armoured shock assault. Their foot tactics often seem almost siege-like to me.
I will take a closer read at Archaic Greek archers.
> Worn together the mail + gambeson resist both light thrusting attack and cuts, it still cannot resist blunt trauma or strong thrusting attack that penetrate the mail and then the gambeson.
ReplyDelete> In a test, putting gambeson over mail gave better result than when the gambeson was worn beneath mail.
What are your thoughts on hidden armors or light armors prominent in later periods (such as certain forms of kikko or kusari katabira jackets) incorporating cloth backing not only beneath, but also on the top? Could this have similar effects to putting gambeson over mail, providing better protection?
Yes, I think it would provide more protection (even if the maker did not know about it, although they probably know about it).
DeleteIn the Middle East, that type of armor in which mail was sandwiched between 2 layers of cloth was called Jazerant.
Byzantine cataphract also wear padded armor over lamellar and mail.
Imperial Chinese soldiers was sometimes depicted wearing robe over armor.
I think the effect is the same as European duplex plate armor.
The projectile cannot penetrate the same layer or if it did penetrate, it cannot move it aside and therefore essentially blunt the projectile which make it unable to penetrate the second layer.
When mail was worn alone without thick padding, results could vary, in some accounts like the European account of native American bows, mail was pretty much less than useless compared to padded cloth armor, even when they were layered one over the other. In a test with a lot of witnesses, two layers of mail get penetrated when shot with arrow from a distance of more than 200 m.
In one account, even having leather on top of the mail did not prevent penetration from wooden tipped arrow.
@Aden YANG I agree with @Joshua, having another layer on top of flexible armor increase the protection provided not only because you are adding more protection overall but also because you are hiding the armor itself, which could give you a tactical advantage as well.
DeleteHow hard or elastic could Japanese lacquer be when they has hardened?
DeleteCould the lacquer layer prevent projectiles from reaching the plate?
It is quite rigid, the elasticity of the plate is given by the strings usually. The structure allow for some flexibility but indeed is hard and rigid unlike most lamellar armor.
DeleteI wouldn't say that lacquer alone could prevent projectiles from reaching the plate, on most damaged armor I saw ( and I have to say it's not a whole lot since those pictures are very rare) the lacquer was always damaged and didn't prevent the exposure of the underneath surface.
I found a picture of Muromachi lamellar plates with extremely thick plates, but I could not find it or trace it again.
DeleteThe plates look like crackers in thickness.
Did the Japanese still wear lamellar armor to protect against bullets? Sometimes I still see examples of 16th century lamellar armor.
Yes they did, they were somewhat rarer but examples like kiritsuke zane (which are still plate made to resemble lamellar but with a lot of holes to be laced) were still used as well as normal laced armor. They could still protect the wearer from guns although those holes were indeed weakspots in regards to firearm.
DeleteAnother important note is that older style of multiplates helmets were still used and I know at least one example which has a bullet mark from battle (and not from testing by the smith).
So older armor did have some degree of bulletproof protection and the usage of these styles is a proof against the fact that "gun paranoia" was a thing that triggered immense armor development as it is often stated.
In fact I would say the opposite, guns didn't play a major role in the development of Japanese armor or at least not as much as it is usually claimed
Thank you very much for your insight.
DeleteI agree with your conclusion that bullets did not affect Japanese as much as popular opinion often state.
It seems that even riveted plate armor could resist bullets.
https://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/aa/original/04.4.35.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/ba/d7/c4bad71f065dc6ded1d1fcb030b7817f.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a8/d8/30/a8d83077619d3147f185a84ce0ebcf52.jpg
Is there any reason why the Japanese choose a multiplate design when they create the Kabuto in the Heian Period?
Is the design more protective than one piece helmet?
About crossbow, I found the photo of a Nara Period crossbow trigger.
https://www.fcp.or.jp/mahoron/nenpou/image1/nenpou2001/68p2_1.jpg
Modern reconstruction:
https://www.fcp.or.jp/mahoron/nenpou/image1/nenpou2001/68p1_1.jpg
This are the websites with the excavated trigger.
https://www.pref.miyagi.jp/site/maizou/09do.html
https://www.fcp.or.jp/mahoron/nenpou/nenpou2001_35.htm
The late Yayoi crossbow was also interesting. There was a paper on it which show a reconstruction sketch having rope to pull the crossbow string.
Very interesting information on the crossbows!
DeleteAlso I remember that there is a video on you tube that shows that even lamellar can stop less powerfull firearms.
Multiplate designs used in the Heian period required small plates which are simpler to made with period technology. Forging a helmet from a single piece of steel is very intensive in terms of working hours and the process of forging itself waste a lot of material with forging scales so you will have a very expensive process.
Multiplate helmets on one hand have small crumble zones in between the ridges of each small "lame", but are not as good as single piece one since they could distrubute the force across the entire surface.
On the other hand a multiplate helmet is easier to fix, so there are benefits in both designs and arguably they will provide good protection nonetheless because they are very rigid structures.
About the Oyumi and crossbows, I remember a late remark that a Samurai survive a shot from Oyumi because of his armor, I don't remember if the shot was stone or arrow/bolt.
DeleteIs this the video you mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSxFY917UH8
There are other videos as well, like the Mythbuster video about paper armor in which they test both steel lamellar and paper armor with bullets.
Would lamellar and multi plate riveted helmet or cuirass had the same effect as duplex armor?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/38/30/34/3830340dd3b9fc69a731b9df92eb0224.jpg
Yes that was the video!
DeleteLamellar and multiplate armor don't have the same effect of duplex armor because to have that you need to forge a plate with two different types of steel super-imposed. The Japanese did forge plates in that way occasionally as I have explained in my article on the making of armor's plates.
About the lamellar video, the maker said that the lamellar was 2 mm stainless steel. How thick was Japanese lamellar plate used in 12th-13th century? Did the thickness increase before gunpowder era?
DeleteIt would be interesting to compare the metallurgy and thickness of 14th-15th century armor with 12th-13th century armor.
Didn't forging Heian period helmet from such small pieces actually harder and more time consuming than using large plates like the one use for the O-yoroi and rivet those together?
Also forging a single piece helmet shouldn't be a complex process since the Neo-Assyrian could already create single piece iron helmet in 800-700 BC.
About duplex armor, the Japanese lamellar plate was softer on the inside and harder on the outside, so would it replicate the effect or did the duplex armor effect happen because the plates was forged together which make the plates unlikely to move aside?
Very sorry for the late reply, this comment went unnoticed!
DeleteAs far as I know kozane thickness could vary quite a lot within the same period (and even within the same armor!), 3 mm for rawhide and 2 mm for iron/steel seems a good average estimation. I don't think there was an increase in thickness of lamellae, actually as far as we know the overlapping of those armor was reduced with the introduction of iyozane and with the demise of some style of lamellar plates like the mitsumezane which hade triple overlapping. This was done in order to reduce the weight and to balance protection much more steel was used instead of the combination of rawhide and iron.
Actually forging a helmet from one single plate is quite hard. For example in Europe you didn't see them up until the 14th century, with most helmets being made with multiple plates.
You need to "raise" the helmet, so you need to hammer a large piece of plate which will marginally lose material each time you heath and hit it. It's definitely way more consuming in terms of resources, time and effort compared to hammering smaller plates which require less time individually and than rivet them together.
Keep in mind that the plates used for the Oyoroi in the wakidate were flat and occasionally to make that single plates multiple pieces were used.
Also keep in mind that making such helmet out of steel would be way more expensive compared to iron.
And I believe that oboshi rivets were also part of the aesthetic of that period so there is also that thing to consider.
A final consideration is also the difference in resources and social structure of a feudal system and of an empire or a centralized kingdom.
Duplex armor properties are caused by the way the plates are forged and superimposed together, so the shocks propagate differently compared to two elements stacked together.
However I have to say that the principle of alternating rawhide with steel is pretty much the same, so that you merge flexibility with hardness but at the same time duplex plates are on another different level due to the stronger bond between the two different materials
To contribute with the subject of the helmets made of many pieces. Many helmets made in Europe were actually two pieces welded together, maybe not the ones made for a king for example but many were two pieces welded. Also, helmets like an armet are made of three pieces because you need a way to open it to put your head inside of it. In the case of armets, the part who covers the top of the head is not really big, so made it in one plate is relatively easy.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armet#/media/File:Italian_Armet_(15c)_by_Wendelin_Boeheim.jpg
https://66.media.tumblr.com/c13386cde973fe3700c1e6026ddab90f/tumblr_inline_pdbufn0aW31t5pjaj_1280.png
This one has articulated pieces in the back of the neck, so even less size for the top of the head.
http://myarmoury.com/talk/files/1425610_003mar2015_131.jpg
The last one is actually a close helmet
Delete@Gunsen
DeleteThe thickness of 2 mm for lamellar plates, is it from a book or a measurement on armor?
Isn't Iyozane lamellar with bigger plates, just like the one in Keiko armor?
About forging helmet, this is the Assyrian helmet I talked about before.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f0/cd/ff/f0cdffa3cbf8cacb3df156e4691c17d0.jpg
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1848-1104-319
After thinking about what you said, I think I had overlooked the Spangenhelm and the Great Helm and thought that the nasal Helmet was the standard for helmet.
The nasal helmet is mostly solid plate, the Great Helm is made of riveted plates until the end.
So the nasal helmet seems to be the exception.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KHM_Wien_A_41_-_Moravian_nasal_helmet,_11th_century.jpg
But it still show that forging a one piece is a choice not bound by technological limitation.
Duplex armor is more sturdy because they are forged together, but I think the main protective value is the empty space between the plates which allow the penetrated first layer to blunt the impact of the attack.
It's more like an educated guess I would say, so take it with a pinch of salt ;) I would also say that thickness overall in the same armor wasn't uniform so there is also that to consider.
DeleteAbout the one piece helmets: I think that forging rather simple shapes like conical helmets is not a big deal but it would still be much more expensive.
I'm quite sure that you know how ancient iron and steel need to be refined before being forged into shape due to the slag inclusions found in pre modern period steel/iron.
So you need to take the material from the furnace, refined it with some folding and hammering, and then forging that into shape: all these process consume some of the material.
Take for example swords: a lot of small pieces are forge welded together before being shaped into a sword of a given lenght. I assume a similar process need to be done when you want a single plate helmet especially if we are talking about ancient or early middle age.
I believe that using a multi-plate approach is cost efficient in the sense that you will lose less material in this process of refining and you will need smaller pieces to begin with. Having larger pieces straight out of a bloom is quite hard.
Moreover, take for example Chinese helmets: as far as I am aware, multiplate designs were much more common even if they had already developed blast furnaces before all the other civilizations, so I assume it was much more cheaper and effective in that way.
Hello, do you have material on the equipment of the common soldier, ashigaru?
ReplyDeleteHi!
DeleteUnfortunately I haven't wrote anything on that at the moment, but the Zohyo Monogatari - 雑兵物語 is probably the main reference of every text on the subject so you might want to look at that one online, you can find several pages of the book depicting late Sengoku period ashigaru
I think you wanted to make an article about the Mongol invasian of Japan? Wouldn´t that be a good chance to make something in concert together with great Ming military? Since he could look into the Chinese side of it since there were a lot of Korean and Chinese troops involved.
ReplyDeleteHi!
DeleteThat's true, and I apprecciate a lot Great Ming Military; but unfortunately I usually work alone in the sense that I'm quite messy and slow in doing research and write, so it might take longer than I want if I allow other people to join.
But if anything, he will be the first one I'll reach out if I need some help with Chinese sources, although the Yuan dynasty is not his main field of research
That and Mongol invasions of Japan is out of my area of expertise - I know very little about the invasions unfortunately.
DeleteI was quite sure about that since the blog is about the Ming dynasty and not the Yuan; on a side note, since those kind of article are usually very attractive, I would suggest you to do a historical review of the arms and armor for the Mongol (Chinese, Jurchens and Korean side) faction in the newly arrived game Ghost of Tsushima.
DeleteI'm quite sure there would be a lot to say :'D
Of course that wouldn't be on the Ming but still very interesting nonetheless, since very few people are aware of the Chinese side of the Mongol Invasion
I thought if you do that in anyway just maybe do it in the sense you do the Japanese part and he the Chinese side everyone doing his own thing. Just topic related articles from each on his own blog about the topic.
ReplyDeleteIts been 3 months. Is everything alright?
ReplyDeleteLooking firward to your next post!
Hi!
Delete2020 was a rough year indeed, I wasn't able to plan properly my schedule due to the pandemic and the fact that I had to come back to my country for the summer plus a number of personal issues: all things considered I'm fine but the blog suffered the most in this period, I really didn't had the time to write.
I'm looking forward to write something new as well as I'm quite late with all the projects I wanted to start, and I reckon I should have made a post about this situation but I kinda lost track of time - didn't realize it is 3 months already withtout articles!
My bad, I'm usually not as active in summer but I should go back to work as soon as I can! Anyway, thanks for caring!